AuthorTopic: "Right To Bear Arms" (Read 60029 times)

wardwilliams

it is a non issue. to ban guns would take a repeal of 2nd amendment. This could never happen. Think of all the states that would never vote for it (I think 2/3 are needed to repeal an amendment or maybe 3/4) TX, FL, all the southern states, all the western states, VT, AK, etc etc.

Darn it. Where's that copy of the Constitution when you really need it? Even my Con Law professor said we wouldn't need to read the thing again after we were done with his class.

On the serious side. The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated into the 14th Amendment, so it only applies to the federal government and not the States. It isn't even held inviolate at the federal level.

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. Even if it is not incorporated against the states, how could a state pass a law that is against the Constitution/supreme law of the land? If a state passed a law that said that said, for instance "warrants may issue VAGUELY discribing the places to be searched" wouldn't that be unconstitutional (4th Am.) for the state to pass such a law? Same with 2nd Am...if a state passed a law banning guns, wouldn't that be unconstitutional?

it is a non issue. to ban guns would take a repeal of 2nd amendment. This could never happen. Think of all the states that would never vote for it (I think 2/3 are needed to repeal an amendment or maybe 3/4) TX, FL, all the southern states, all the western states, VT, AK, etc etc.

Darn it. Where's that copy of the Constitution when you really need it? Even my Con Law professor said we wouldn't need to read the thing again after we were done with his class.

On the serious side. The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated into the 14th Amendment, so it only applies to the federal government and not the States. It isn't even held inviolate at the federal level.

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. Even if it is not incorporated against the states, how could a state pass a law that is against the Constitution/supreme law of the land? If a state passed a law that said that said, for instance "warrants may issue VAGUELY discribing the places to be searched" wouldn't that be unconstitutional (4th Am.) for the state to pass such a law? Same with 2nd Am...if a state passed a law banning guns, wouldn't that be unconstitutional?

The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the Federal Goverment. It does not address the power of individual states (except in the 10th Amendment). The 14th Amendment has not made the 2nd Amendment applicable to the states.

The 4th Amendment, on the other hand, HAS been incorporated. So a state must both respect and parrot a citizen's federal right not to be illegally searched, but it need not abstain from impeding the federal right to bear arms, because that rule restrains only the actions of Congress (and presumably the President).

The main argument, as best I can tell, for having anything other than a hunting rifle, is for the sake of protection against someone else who is armed. I really haven't heard any strong arguments beyond that, so I will focus on that problem.

Why do we only have guns available that are designed to kill people???

If people were given ammunition such as rubber bullets, they at least wouldn't kill people when they shot them. There is some chance they would kill them, since they would have to be fired with enough pressure to stop someone, but they wouldn't be designed to kill people.

Even better would be to have a gun that administers a non-lethal charge or very fast acting sedative when you shoot someone rather than physically punches holes in them, but it would very likely be expensive and take awhile to implement something like that, so using rubber bullets would be a good immediate fix.

For the hunters, as I mentioned above at the beggining, they would still be able to have their hunting rifles, as long as they didn't have a criminal record or some serious psychological problem.

That should solve the problem for both sides, I don't understand why this hasn't happened by now.

The main argument, as best I can tell, for having anything other than a hunting rifle, is for the sake of protection against someone else who is armed. I really haven't heard any strong arguments beyond that, so I will focus on that problem.

Why do we only have guns available that are designed to kill people???

If people were given ammunition such as rubber bullets, they at least wouldn't kill people when they shot them. There is some chance they would kill them, since they would have to be fired with enough pressure to stop someone, but they wouldn't be designed to kill people.

Even better would be to have a gun that administers a non-lethal charge or very fast acting sedative when you shoot someone rather than physically punches holes in them, but it would very likely be expensive and take awhile to implement something like that, so using rubber bullets would be a good immediate fix.

For the hunters, as I mentioned above at the beggining, they would still be able to have their hunting rifles, as long as they didn't have a criminal record or some serious psychological problem.

That should solve the problem for both sides, I don't understand why this hasn't happened by now.

So there would be no possibility of obtaining illegal traditional ammo? The criminals get hollow jacketed rounds and you are shooting play-doh?

Factor how easy it would be given the vast quantities already on the market, international sources, etc.

The main argument, as best I can tell, for having anything other than a hunting rifle, is for the sake of protection against someone else who is armed. I really haven't heard any strong arguments beyond that, so I will focus on that problem.

Why do we only have guns available that are designed to kill people???

If people were given ammunition such as rubber bullets, they at least wouldn't kill people when they shot them. There is some chance they would kill them, since they would have to be fired with enough pressure to stop someone, but they wouldn't be designed to kill people.

Even better would be to have a gun that administers a non-lethal charge or very fast acting sedative when you shoot someone rather than physically punches holes in them, but it would very likely be expensive and take awhile to implement something like that, so using rubber bullets would be a good immediate fix.

For the hunters, as I mentioned above at the beggining, they would still be able to have their hunting rifles, as long as they didn't have a criminal record or some serious psychological problem.

That should solve the problem for both sides, I don't understand why this hasn't happened by now.

So there would be no possibility of obtaining illegal traditional ammo? The criminals get hollow jacketed rounds and you are shooting play-doh?

Factor how easy it would be given the vast quantities already on the market, international sources, etc.

The rubber bullets are certainly not play-doh. They are shot at such a high rate of speed that they can do a lot of damage. Numerous people have actually been killed because they've been shot with a rubber bullet. Anyway, as I said before, I'm just sick of America's obsession with guns. Every day 8 children are killed by gun violence. It is just way too easy to purchase a gun, and then kill 32 people. A judge ruled him a danger to himself, and he was still allowed to purchase a firearm. Furthermore, the firearm he purchases serves no useful purpose; what can you possible use a 9MM for besides shooting at a target range? What could you possibly use a Glock for? It's just sad

As I said before, we traded 30+ lives for the political correctness of sealed mental history records.

I agree with the above post. If law-abiding citizens were only allowed to use rubber bullets, we might as well be throwing rocks at the people shooting hollow points back at us. If someone is shooting at me, I'm not worried about incapacitating them with rubber bullets, I'm shooting to kill and I want ammo that can accomplish that goal.

The main argument, as best I can tell, for having anything other than a hunting rifle, is for the sake of protection against someone else who is armed. I really haven't heard any strong arguments beyond that, so I will focus on that problem.

Why do we only have guns available that are designed to kill people???

If people were given ammunition such as rubber bullets, they at least wouldn't kill people when they shot them. There is some chance they would kill them, since they would have to be fired with enough pressure to stop someone, but they wouldn't be designed to kill people.

Even better would be to have a gun that administers a non-lethal charge or very fast acting sedative when you shoot someone rather than physically punches holes in them, but it would very likely be expensive and take awhile to implement something like that, so using rubber bullets would be a good immediate fix.

For the hunters, as I mentioned above at the beggining, they would still be able to have their hunting rifles, as long as they didn't have a criminal record or some serious psychological problem.

That should solve the problem for both sides, I don't understand why this hasn't happened by now.

So there would be no possibility of obtaining illegal traditional ammo? The criminals get hollow jacketed rounds and you are shooting play-doh?

Factor how easy it would be given the vast quantities already on the market, international sources, etc.

I guess you have never seen what a cranked up paintball gun can do, you can break bones with them when you crank them up high enough (which is illegal, it is easy to do though, at my undergrad, the area was fairly dangerous, so car's get stolen on a regular basis, frats have an easy time deterring potential robbers with them, they don't need to go buy real guns, they do plenty enough damage with something like a paintball gun, using real guns when there are less deadly options is just common sense). Rubber bullets are much worse, they are solid and not designed to break and disperse the damage when they hit someone, I was just suggesting them to give some middle ground, someone would still have a very good chance of getting killed by one, I just wanted to suggest the option to you bloodthirsty types.

You should have a little more respect for human life, I assure you breaking a bunch of bones in their bodies would take them down. And it isn't like any of you are speaking from real experience, now are you, unless you did go to school in a dangerous area, in which case, you wouldn't have been using a real gun in the first place, because that is insane.